Plane 'suffered fuel supply problems' before fatal crash.
China 1, US 0, Britain -1
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Glasgow
Age: 40
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bulldog gauges are pretty accurate, although I can't put a figure on it. There is a central fuel drain at the lowest point. I suspect that the tendency to not drain evenly is likely due to pilot error (not quite keeping straight and level 
- I'll use the student excuse ) which if you flew out of balance I suspect you would probably get the same error (there is a moral in here somewhere).
I have only seen the vent leak once, and that was when it was set to cross feed ("both"), it was being pulled across uneven ground and the tanks were tipped.
In your setup, there is no way of telling whether the fuel in separate tanks is OK, and if there is a problem on one side, there is no way of controlling that. Mind you - if there is a problem on one side, there is a good chance there is the same problem on the other...
I presume that there is a fuel pump to pull in from the collector so that in inverted flight doesn't stop the donkey when gravity is no longer your friend?
I might give you China 2, UK 1, US 0, but I think I'm being generous (and I think I should stop the game of trumps: they are very different planes and I'll soon start to show my lack of true knowledge..)
- I'll use the student excuse ) which if you flew out of balance I suspect you would probably get the same error (there is a moral in here somewhere). I have only seen the vent leak once, and that was when it was set to cross feed ("both"), it was being pulled across uneven ground and the tanks were tipped.
In your setup, there is no way of telling whether the fuel in separate tanks is OK, and if there is a problem on one side, there is no way of controlling that. Mind you - if there is a problem on one side, there is a good chance there is the same problem on the other...
I presume that there is a fuel pump to pull in from the collector so that in inverted flight doesn't stop the donkey when gravity is no longer your friend?
I might give you China 2, UK 1, US 0, but I think I'm being generous (and I think I should stop the game of trumps: they are very different planes and I'll soon start to show my lack of true knowledge..)
In your setup, there is no way of telling whether the fuel in separate tanks is OK, and if there is a problem on one side, there is no way of controlling that. Mind you - if there is a problem on one side, there is a good chance there is the same problem on the other...
I will say however experience with the Dripsy Major has given me a somewhat jaundiced view of the design choices made by British engineers......
In high wing Cessna's used by schools and clubs, I think the whole start on one tank and then do the runup on other and then switch to both is unnecessary and even dangerous. For starters the POH only says to check the selector is on both on the preflight inspection and then on the pre-takeoff check it says with regards to the fuel selector to "recheck both".
The only documented examples of a situation where fuel did not feed from a tank in a Cessna invariably involved a flight immediately after the fuel system had been disturbed during maintenance, usually removal of the wing. In the later case it is routine to cap the ends of the fuselage fuel and vent lines. If the caps are not properly removed a line could end up blocked.
I challenge anyone to find an example where an in service aircraft suddenly stopped feeding from one wing. The real danger IMO is if you do the left, right, then to both checks; will be forgetting to return the selector to both before takeoff.
I personally know of one aircraft that was destroyed after an engine failure in cruise that started with an inadvertent takeoff with the the fuel selected to left instead of both. I also know of an EFATO caused by a sharpish departure turn that was required for an unofficial but encouraged noise abatement procedure. Again the switch to both was missed on the pre takeoff check and the turn was towards the tank selected. When all the fuel sloshed over to the outboard end of the tank due to the bank the engine stopped. Fortunately the pilot immediately lowered the nose and leveled the wings and the engine roared back to life and he was able to fly away none the worse except for the state of his underwear.
Can't happen to you ? Hands up to all the pilots who Not Once ever realised they had missed something on the checks after they were airborne......
This is obviously harder to do with rental aircraft but at a minimum the gauges should be compared with the dipstick reading on every pre flight inspection.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Milano, Italy
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Glasgow
Age: 40
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[NOTE: whats below is wrong - it doesn't take into account the forces in a turn, but I've left it up to keep my pride in check and the following post by IM to make sense...]
Gravity?
In a low wing plane, wings are normally slightly V shaped to aid lateral stability. If a fuel tank is in a wing, it makes sense that the pipe from the fuel tank will be at the lowest point in the tank, so that the maximum amount of fuel can be drained from the tank. In a wing sloping down towards the cockpit, the fuel pipe will be at the cockpit end of the fuel tank (nearest the bottom of the V) as this is the lowest point in the tank when the plane is straight and level.
If a plane banks, the outside end of the wing is now lower than the centre end. Due to gravity, the fuel will move towards the outside end of the wing, away from the fuel pipe to the engine. If only that tank is selected, the fuel pipe might then be trying to suck air rather than fuel...
Of course - designers know about this and will have designed the fuel tanks in such a way that this shouldn't happen during normal flight, but for example in the bulldog, there is a warning area marked on the fuel gauge in which aerobatics aren't allowed due to this problem (to the best of my memory anyway - I don't have the docs here - it might be a warning about steep turns over a certain bank angle).
Mind you - if you are this short of fuel then you shouldn't be thinking about aeros anyway!
Gravity?
In a low wing plane, wings are normally slightly V shaped to aid lateral stability. If a fuel tank is in a wing, it makes sense that the pipe from the fuel tank will be at the lowest point in the tank, so that the maximum amount of fuel can be drained from the tank. In a wing sloping down towards the cockpit, the fuel pipe will be at the cockpit end of the fuel tank (nearest the bottom of the V) as this is the lowest point in the tank when the plane is straight and level.
If a plane banks, the outside end of the wing is now lower than the centre end. Due to gravity, the fuel will move towards the outside end of the wing, away from the fuel pipe to the engine. If only that tank is selected, the fuel pipe might then be trying to suck air rather than fuel...
Of course - designers know about this and will have designed the fuel tanks in such a way that this shouldn't happen during normal flight, but for example in the bulldog, there is a warning area marked on the fuel gauge in which aerobatics aren't allowed due to this problem (to the best of my memory anyway - I don't have the docs here - it might be a warning about steep turns over a certain bank angle).
Mind you - if you are this short of fuel then you shouldn't be thinking about aeros anyway!
Last edited by riverrock83; 16th Apr 2012 at 21:28. Reason: I was wrong...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would the bank do that?
Guest
Posts: n/a
The club where riverrock flies his Bulldog has a Chipmunk which feeds very asymmetrically - the starboard tank can get to 2 IG in the time that the port has only used 2. With the starboard tank empty, there's about 8 left in the port one. Turns to the left or right are no problem - provided the turn is coordinated
Unporting is more of an issue in high wing aircraft as they have less dihedral. In the case I mentioned he compounded his mistake by taking off with very low fuel
as he only wanted to do one circuit, which would have been no problem if he had selected both.
as he only wanted to do one circuit, which would have been no problem if he had selected both.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will say however experience with the Dripsy Major has given me a somewhat jaundiced view of the design choices made by British engineers......
I've been flying well over 30 years, a lot of it behind various Gipsys, and I love 'em!
Donnlas - thanks for the update. Glad he seems to be making a good recovery.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Altrincham
Age: 58
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC News - Salford plane crash survivor ready to fly again
Salford plane crash survivor ready to fly again
24 July 2012 Last updated at 18:50
A man who spent months in hospital after the light aircraft he was a passenger in crashed into houses in Greater Manchester has said he is looking forward to taking to the skies again.
Joel McNicholls was a passenger in the plane which crashed into two Salford houses on 29 July 2011. The pilot, Ian Dalglish, died from the injuries he received in the crash.
The 20-year-old said he had no memory of the crash, but did recall using "every ounce of energy trying to get out of the aeroplane".
He said he thought about the crash "every day when I look in the mirror, but that is the risk that you take when you go flying".
He added flying was "a feeling like no other" and that he would not let what happened stop him flying again.
What a brave lad. A true hero
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
similar topic:http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...struments.html
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Top attitude
I can't help observing that this guy has the same type of attitude that the members of the Guinea Pig Club that I have been privileged enough to know demonstrated, I hope he has a support network that is as good as they had.
I wish him a speedy recovery as the medical work is a long way from being finished.
I wish him a speedy recovery as the medical work is a long way from being finished.
slight aside
I have a friend who, a couple of months ago after being obliged by ATC to descend to 500', realised he needed to switch tanks. Between L an R, there is 'none' - and it was at this point that the little lever came off in his hand. He was fine, but the aircraft was written off.
Something to think about if your aircraft fuel selector has the same design.
Fly safe, Sam.
Something to think about if your aircraft fuel selector has the same design.
Fly safe, Sam.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm. Why did he 'have' to go so low? Why did he 'have' to change tanks while so low? Why couldn't he just place the selector lever back onto its (keyed) shaft and continue with the fuel selection?
Just asking.....
Just asking.....
It was classic 'incident pit':
ATC asked him to descend to 500' - so he obliged.
Once there, he realised he needed to change tanks
Didn't want to mess ATC about with requesting to climb again
Lever came off in his hand, and despite trying for about 10 seconds (which probably felt like about an hour!), it wouldn't go back on
He decided to 'fly the plane' rather than keep his head stuck in the footwell.
At 500' there's not much time to be 'messing about'.
So yes, change any of these parameters and there would have been no problem...
ATC asked him to descend to 500' - so he obliged.
Once there, he realised he needed to change tanks
Didn't want to mess ATC about with requesting to climb again
Lever came off in his hand, and despite trying for about 10 seconds (which probably felt like about an hour!), it wouldn't go back on
He decided to 'fly the plane' rather than keep his head stuck in the footwell.
At 500' there's not much time to be 'messing about'.
So yes, change any of these parameters and there would have been no problem...
